RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS


IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  96-03600
            INDEX CODES:  111.01, 131.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His nonselections for promotion to the grade of lieutenant colonel  be
declared null and void.

The  Promotion  Recommendation  (PRF),  AF  Form  709,  prepared   for
consideration by the CY94A Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on
11 Oct 94, be upgraded to a “Definitely Promote.”

He be promoted to the grade of lieutenant colonel as  though  selected
by the CY94A Lieutenant Colonel Board, which convened on 11 Oct 94.

His records be corrected  to  reflect  continuous  active  duty,  with
restoration of all pay, benefits, and other  entitlements  to  include
carryover of the maximum amount of leave for the period he was not  on
active duty.

By amendment, his Officer Performance Report (OPR) closing 6 May 96 be
amended  to  reflect   a   professional   military   education   (PME)
recommendation.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

His Record of Performance (ROP) was “tainted” when used by the  senior
rater and the Management Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) to prepare  his
PRF.

The Management Level Evaluation Board (MLEB) used  illegal  procedures
in the PRF process.

The selection boards which considered his record was held in violation
of statute and Department of Defense (DOD) directive.

A Special Selection Board cannot provide a full measure of relief.

In support of his appeal, the applicant provided a  detailed  personal
statement and other documents associated with the matter under review,
including  top  promote  materials,  board  member  observations,  and
documentary evidence pertaining to illegal selection boards.

Applicant's complete submission is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from the Personnel Data System  (PDS)  indicates
that the applicant is currently serving on active duty in the grade of
major.  His Total Active Federal Military Service Date (TAFMSD) is  11
Dec 78.  He has a date of separation (DOS) of 30 Apr 2003.

Applicant's OER/OPR profile since 1988 follows:

      PERIOD ENDING    EVALUATION

      17 Apr 88  1-1-1
      30 Oct 88  Meets Standards
      30 Oct 89  Meets Standards
      20 Oct 91  Meets Standards
      30 Jun 92  Meets Standards
      30 Jun 93  Meets Standards
 #   30 Jun 94   Meets Standards
       6 May 95  Meets Standards
##    6 May 96   Meets Standards
      20 Mar 97  Training Report
      20 Mar 98  Meets Standards

 # Top Report - CY94A (11 Oct 94) Lt Col Board.
## Top Report – CY96C (8 Jul 96) Lt Col Board.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Evaluation Board Section, AFPC/DPPPEP, reviewed  this  application
and recommended denial.  According to DPPPEP, the  applicant  has  not
provided any evidence to substantiate his allegations or prove that he
may have been treated unfairly by the officer evaluation system.

A complete copy of the DPPPEP evaluation is at Exhibit C.

The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed this  application
and addressed  the  contentions  pertaining  to  "Defective  Selection
Boards.”  In DPPB's view,  the  application  contained  faulty  logic,
incorrect      statements,      accusations       without       merit,
directives/statute/regulations taken out of context, and  was  without
merit.

A complete copy of the DPPB evaluation is at Exhibit D.

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, reviewed this application  and
indicated that, in their view, the advisory opinions addressed all  of
the applicant's allegations and supporting documentation.  DPPPA noted
that the applicant did not provide any support from the  senior  rater
and the Management Level Review Board (MLRB) president.  Based on  the
evidence presented, DPPPA recommended denial.

A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit E.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

In his detailed response, in addition  to  the  issues  he  previously
raised, the applicant indicated that  he  was  denied  an  appropriate
Professional  Military  Education  (PME)  recommendation  on  his  OPR
closing 6 May 96 because of his nonselection for promotion.

According to the applicant, the issues in his case  are  quite  clear,
although carefully avoided by AFPC.  In his view, AFPC  has  not  even
provided a scintilla of evidence to support their positions, nor  have
they provided a single document which would prove their  pontification
was any more than speculation.

Applicant's complete response and additional documentary evidence  are
at Exhibit G.

_________________________________________________________________

ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Pursuant to the  Board's  request,  the  Evaluation  Programs  Branch,
AFPC/DPPPE, reviewed this application and documents initiated to  date
and indicated that, at the present time, due to  lack  of  evidentiary
support from his original senior rater, MLRB president, and his rating
chain, they recommend denial.

A complete copy of the DPPPE evaluation is at Exhibit H.

The Selection Board Secretariat, AFPC/DPPB, reviewed  the  applicant's
rebuttal, and indicated that it failed to provide any new evidence  to
support his contentions.  Therefore, they have nothing further to  add
to their initial advisory.

A complete copy of the DPPB evaluation is at Exhibit I.

The Appeals and SSB Branch, AFPC/DPPPA, again reviewed this appeal and
indicated that they concurred with the advisory from AFPC/DPPPEP.   In
their view, DPPPEP adequately addressed the PRF and  OPR  issues.   As
they do not believe any correction to the PRF and  OPR  is  warranted,
SSB consideration is not warranted.   With  regard  to  the  issue  of
direct promotion, they strongly recommended denial.

A complete copy of the DPPPA evaluation is at Exhibit J.

The Staff Judge  Advocate,  AFPC/JA,  reviewed  this  application  and
recommended denial.  In JA's view, the applicant has failed to present
relevant evidence of any error or injustice warranting relief.

A complete copy of the JA evaluation is at Exhibit K.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF ADDITIONAL AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

Applicant indicated that the unrefuted evidence  proves  his  OPR  was
incorrect when considered by both the MLEB  and  central  board.   The
unrefuted evidence proves he was harmed  by  an  illegal  top  promote
system used in other commands Air Force wide.  The unrefuted  evidence
proves he was  harmed  by  a  central  selection  board  process  held
contrary to law.  The evidence also  proves  an  SSB  offers  no  cure
because of the combination of the errors precludes  relief.   He  asks
the Board to correct his record to reflect selection to the  grade  of
lieutenant colonel as if  selected  by  the  1994  Lieutenant  Colonel
Board, with all pay, allowances, and entitlements  which  were  denied
him as a result of the errors in his record and the illegal activities
in the evaluation system and the Air Force central promotion selection
system.

Applicant's complete response and additional documentary evidence  are
at Exhibit M.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided by existing  law
or regulations.

2.  The application was timely filed.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate
the  existence  of  probable  error  or  injustice.   The  applicant's
complete  submission  was  thoroughly  reviewed  and  his  contentions
concerning the contested PRF and OPR, his consideration for  promotion
by the selection board in  question,  and  the  promotion  process  in
general were duly noted.  However, we  do  not  find  the  applicant’s
assertions and the documentation presented in support  of  his  appeal
sufficiently persuasive to override the rationale provided by the  Air
Force  offices  of  primary  responsibility  (OPRs)  concerning  these
issues.  Therefore, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to
the contrary, we agree with the recommendations of the OPRs and  adopt
their rationale as the basis for our decision that the  applicant  has
failed to sustain his burden of  establishing  that  he  has  suffered
either an error or an injustice.  Accordingly, we find  no  compelling
basis to recommend granting the relief sought in this application.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not  been
shown  that  a  personal  appearance  with  or  without  counsel  will
materially  add  to  our  understanding  of   the   issues   involved.
Therefore, the request for a hearing is not favorably considered.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The  applicant  be  notified  that  the  evidence  presented  did  not
demonstrate the existence of probable  material  error  or  injustice;
that the application was denied without  a  personal  appearance;  and
that the application will only be reconsidered upon the submission  of
newly  discovered  relevant  evidence   not   considered   with   this
application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the  Board  considered  this  application  in
Executive Session on 23 Sep 99, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

      Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Panel Chair
      Mr. Charles E. Bennett, Member
      Mr. Jackson A. Hauslein, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

    Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 4 Dec 96, w/atchs.
    Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
    Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPEP, dated 21 Jan 97.
    Exhibit D.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 24 Jan 97.
    Exhibit E.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 29 Jan 97
    Exhibit F.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 17 Feb 97.
    Exhibit G.  Letter, applicant, dated 31 Mar 97, w/atchs.
    Exhibit H.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPE, dated 12 Aug 98.
    Exhibit I.  Letter, AFPC/DPPB, dated 17 Sep 98.
    Exhibit J.  Letter, AFPC/DPPPA, dated 22 Sep 98.
    Exhibit K.  Letter, AFPC/JA, dated 22 Oct 98.
    Exhibit L.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 9 Nov 98.
    Exhibit M.  Letter, applicant, undated, w/atchs.




                                   THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                   Panel Chair